tv FOX News Sunday With Chris Wallace FOX News August 4, 2013 3:00pm-4:01pm PDT
we remain proud and fearless. >> i'm chris wallace. the u.s. government closes up shop across the muslim world. responding to intelligence of an al-qaeda threat, the state department shuts embassies and consulates in the mideast and north africa and issues an extraordinary worldwide travel alert to americans. plus new questions about relations with russia after moscow grants asylum to edward snowden. >> rush has stabbed us in the back, and each day that snowden is allowed to roam free is another twist for the night. >> now the white house is rethinking whether the president should meet with russian president putin.
plus, growing controversy about the surveillance of americanse% here and overseas. we'll talk with a former director of the cia and nsa general michael hayden, as well as nsa critic congressman justin amash of michigan. then washington keeps heading for a budget impasse and government shutdown. >> we've seen a certain faction of republicans in congress saying they wouldn't pay the very bills that congress racked up in the first place. >> you know, instead of working together, the president yesterday threatened to shut down the government. >> in an exclusive interview, we'll ask house majority leader eric cantor if they can make a deal before the deadline, all right now on "fox news sunday." hello again from fox news in washington. we begin with a terror threat that has prompted the state department to arab i global issl alert for americans, and close two dozen embassies and consulates across the muslim
world. we're told the al-qaeda threat is specific, but the targets are not. chief washington correspondent james rosen has the latest. james? >> chris, good morning. president obama and his national security team approached this day, the president's 52nd birthday, not in a state of celebration, but rather one of apprehension. the u.s. embassy compound in cairo, egypt, is one of nearly two dozen u.s. installations that would normally have been open today, about is now closed. at the u.s. embassy in yemen, heightened security was ready discernible. a senior lawmaker told fox news that terrorist chatter picked up by u.s. signals intelligence exceeds anything witnessed in more than a decade. lisa monaco, the president's counterterrorism advisor, and susan rice, now the president's national security advisor, who led the interagency advice. rice chaired a principals committee meeting yesterday that included the secretaries of state and defense and directors of fbi, cia and nsa. still another participant in that session says it appears
plotted at western, not specifically u.s. influence. >> we're taking it seriously, which i think you'd expect us to do. yeah, there's a significant threat stream, and we're reacting. >> the latest threat will likely revive america's memories of the scary second week of last year when islamists rioted at three western embassies, culminating on the fatal attack on the u.s. consulate and annex in benghazi. >> it is possible we may have additional days of closing as well. of course depending on our analysis. individual u.s. embassies and consulates will announce whether or not they are open or implementing restrictions or other measures. >> president obama is at camp david this morning, returning to the white house later today, said to be receiving regular briefings on the al-qaeda threat and our response. chris? >> the terror alert comes as russia has granted nsa leak edward snowden temporary asylum.
there are growing demands in congress to impose new limits on the government surveillance of americans. joining us now to discuss all this in new york general michael hayden, former head of the nsa and the cia. and here in washington, republican congressman justin amash of michigan who led an effort to restrict the nsa's data collection. general, based on your long experience, what's going on here with the u.s. closing almost two dozen embassies and consulates across the middle east and also this extraordinary global travel alert for all of august? what does it say about our standing now in the middle east? >> criticizes, as you know, i'm out of government, so i'm not reading the cables, but i can only imagine why would it have taken in government in terms of the stack of evidence that would have been required for our government to take the kinds of action that you and james just described. so this does look quite serious. the only thing we're missing is
the geography. therefore we're taking caution and warning folks all the way between algeria and bangladesh. clearly this is a serious thing. it also kind of points out that this al-qaeda danger is not yet over. and at least elements of al-qaeda are not yet totally on the run. >> i was going to ask you about that. does this show that al-qaeda is stronger than president obama has led us to believe over the last year or so? and in a sense is there a danger that by reacting the way we have, as just closing facilities from algeria to bangladesh, that it only empowers al-qaeda? >> well, that's the cost of doing business. i understand the argument that it seems to, as you say, empower them more than perhaps they're really capable of performing. on the other hand, you have a real danger to americans. you want to be cautious. let me add an additional factor in here, chris.
the announcement itself may also be designed to interrupt al-qaeda planning, to put them off stride, put them on the back foot, to let them know we're alert, on to a portion of this plot line. >> congressman amash, how do you see the closing of our embassies, diplomatic facilities, across the muslim world? as a sensible response or overreaction? >> i don't have any more facts than anyone else here. i think the administration needs to take whatever steps it deems appropriate, but it's precisely because we live in this dangerous world that we need protections like the fourth amendment to the constitution, the framers of the constitution put it in place, precisely because they were worried that you'd have national security justifications for violating people's rights. they weren't worried the government was going to say, we want to come in to your home to host a nice darren paper, we want your papers to find recipes, they're worried about a
national security justification for violating people's rights. in a dangerous world, you need the fourth amendment, the constitution. >> we'll get to the heart of this debate about the nsa and whether or not there should be restrictions in a moment. let me ask you first, congressman, about the other news development this week, that is of course russia granting temporary asylum to the nsa leaker edward snowden. when he gives up secrets to other countries about information, programs that have been approved by the president, approved by congress, approved and overseen by the courts, is he a whistleblower? because you've suggested he is. is he a whistleblower or traitor? >> we don't know all the facts about what he's doing overseas, what kind of information he's given up, but i certainly think without his doing what he did members of congress would not have really known about it. there's allegations that this information was given to congress. of course, congress passed the patriot act, the fisa amendments act, but members of congress
were not really aware on the whole about what these programs were being used for. the extent to which they were being used. members of the intelligence committee were told, but members who are rank and file members really didn't have the information. >> so you till consider him a whistleblower? >> yes. >> because? >> well, he can -- >> i mean, he had signed a note, said he wasn't going to give up the secrets, and he gave up the secrets. >> as i said, he may be doing things overseas that we would find problematic, that we would find dangerous. we'll find those facts out over time. but as far as congress is concerned, sure, he's a whistleblower. he told us what we wanted to know. >> general hayden, it isn't just congressman amash. according to a new poll, 55% of americans now regard edward snowden as a whistleblower, not as a traitor. a couple of questions. one, are they wrong? secondly, in your mind, how tough should president obama get with russia, get with vladimir putin, now that they've given snowden temporary asylum?
>> yeah. first of all, chris, put me in the 45% in that poll who does not believe he's a whistleblower at all. look, a whistleblower is someone who raises concerns within our government in order to affect change. there is no evidence whatsoever that this young man warned anyone, went to his supervisor, his supervisor's boss, even went to the congressman. no evidence of that whatsoever. what he did was go to glen greenwald, other news outlets, and publish information that he may in his own conscious believe we need to be concerned about. but what he did was not tell the appropriate authorities. he told the world, including our enemies, and he's made it more difficult for our security services to keep america safe. now with regard to the russians, i think i agree with the senator from new york. it's a bit of a slap in the face. i know the administration is reconsidering the visit in moscow after the g-20 with
president putin. frankly i don't think president obama should go. maybe just betrays my own personal background, chris, but i think it's a jump ball whether he should go to saint petersburg for the g-20 at all. >> you've been on the fringes of it. let's get directly into this question of the nsa, what it's doing, whether should be new limits. general, the house almost passed, as you well know last week, a measure offered by congressman amash, that would have put an end to the kind of blanket collection of phone records of all americans, and instead limit that only to information on americans who were under specific investigation for links to terrorism. on a practical level, general, would that have hamstrung you? >> oh, chris, it would have turned the program on its head. look, this isn't -- this program, the metadata program that we're talking about here -- isn't about targeting americans. it's about trying to define, trying to decide what the
lightest touch possible, who in america should be targeted for increased interest from the fbi or from our intelligence services. look, this is metadata. business records. the court has held it has no expectation of privacy. and therefore what the agencies have done is to go down this path frankly informing members of congress. i read the letters that were released this week in 2009 and 2011 that specifically invited members of congress to come read what the government was doing and the phrase in the letter was bulk metadata collection. >> let me bring in congressman amash. you just heard the, you know, say that americans' privacy is not being violated, and that your amendment that you almost passed, only lost by a few votes, would make it harder for them to get the information they need about terrorism. >> we don't have any evidence
that it would make it that much more difficult. we're not going to have a perfect system. you can't have a perfect system unless you have people under constant lockdown, constantly being monitored. even in that system, you have essentially a police state. you run the risk of having a much more dangerous society. you have senators like senator wyden and udall and others who have said, and senator leahy, who don't the program is effective. as to whether americans' privacy is being violated, just ask my constituents. if i go back home to a town hall or meeting, they will tell you that their privacy is being violated. the court case that the justice department, the intelligence community, rely on so heavily is a court case from the 1970s where one person was under suspicion for a limited period of time, and they collected his records. that's very different from collecting the phone records and other data of every single american in the united states. >> well, general, let's get directly to this, answer these two concerns.
to the congressman's constituents in grand rapids, michigan, explain why their privacy is not being violated. specifically why do you need this information on every phone call that's made by every american? again, just the fact of the phone call, not the content. why do you need that to fight terror? >> well, let's start with the legal premise here, chris. i realize smith versus maryland in 1979 was about a very specific and discreet case, but the fact of the matter is the court held that metadata, in essence, our phone bills, metadata, has no expectation of privacy. that's why we in the intelligence community felt that this was the lightest -- as i said, the lightest touch possible to try to define who in america might be the enemy inside the gate. now, what we do with it, chris, is very important. look, i understand the congressman and his constituents' concerns, so they would want to know, all right, you've got this ocean of data, what do you do with it? that's very important. look, the government has lots of
oceans of data. the government demands that i tell them every penny i make and how i made it. that also is in one sense an invasion of privacy. but there's a larger national purpose, which that serves. that same applies to this metadata collection. what do we do with the data? what we do, chris, let me give you an example. we roll up a terrorist cell, let's say yemen, which james rosen referred to in his piece, we roll up a terrorist cell there, find a cellphone about which we had no knowledge prior to that raid. we take that cellphone number, metaphorically, we approach that ocean of data, and simply say has this phone been in contact with any of these phones inside this metadata database? >> let me bring congressman amash in. sounds recently. >> well, you're collecting the phone records of every single american in the united states. it's important to understand that what the justice department
and intelligence community are relying on is a third-party doctrine, saying that because you've given your data, because it's shared with a third party, it becomes public property. >> the phone company, because they have a record that you called me. >> and it's important to understand that it then goes metadata. so we start with metadata, but the government is not suggesting that it can't collect your actual communications, can't collect your content. they can collect your content, just as they can collect your metadata. metadata can tell you a whole host of a person's life with the computer power we have today. >> we have less than a minute left. i'll ask you to do this quickly, both of you. general, rightly or wrongly, seems there's a move under foot represented by congressman amash to put new restrictions on the nsa. it seems clear that will happen. a couple ideas that have been suggested -- creation of a special council to challenge the government's surveillance
request in the secret fisa court, reducing how long phone records can be retained from five years to two. releasing information each year on how many warrants the government seeks. briefly, general, could you live with any and/or all of those? >> several there that i think the intelligence community is looking at right now, chris. to make americans more comfortable about the program. i've got to add, chris, it doesn't make americans more comfortable about the program to misrepresent it. this does not authorize the collection of content, period. >> congressman amash, you heard the three suggestions i have. would that satisfy your concerns or do you want an end to this bulk collection of records? >> i think we have a whole host of ideas out there. i've got a bill called the liberty act. chairman goodlat is committed to working through this process, and we'll have good bills come through the committee. >> thank you both for coming in today. >> thank you, chris. >> we'll stay on top of all these issues. thank you, both. congress leaves town for a
five-week release with the clock ticking on a potential government shutdown. we'll discuss the unfinished i'm phyllis and i have diabetic nerve pain. when i first felt the diabetic nerve pain, of course i had no idea what it was. i felt like my feet were going to sleep. it progressed from there to burning like i was walking on hot coals... to like 1,000 bees that were just stinging my feet. i have a great relationship with my doctor... he found lyrica for me. [ female announcer ] it's known that diabetes damages nerves. lyrica is fda approved to treat diabetic nerve pain. lyrica is not for everyone. it may cause serious allergic reactio or suicidal thoughts or actions. tell your doctor t away if you have these, new or worsening depron, or unusual chaes in mood or behavior. or swelling, trouble breathing, rash, hives, blisters, changes in eyesight including blurry vision, muscle pain with fever, tired feeling, or skin sores from diabetes. common side effes are dizziness, sleess, weight gain and swelling of hands, legs and feet.
don't drink alcohol while taki lyrica. don't drive or use machinery until you know how lyrica affects you. those who have had a drug or alcohol problem may be more likely to misuse lyrica. having less pain -- it's a wonderful feeling. [ female announcer ] ask your doctor about lyrica today. it's specific treatment for diabetic nerve pain. to hear more of phyllis's story, visit lyrica.com.
>> congress headed home this week for its august recess with deadlines approaching to fund the government for the next year and to raise the debt limit or go into default. i sat down with house majority leader eric cantor to discuss where things stand. welcome back to "fox news sunday." >> chris, good to be on. >> let's start with the latest jobs numbers out friday. the economy added 162,000 jobs in july. unemployment dropped to 7.4%, the lowest in 4 1/2 years.
factory production, home construction, and auto sales are all up. the july numbers are a bit disappointing, but overall if you look over the last year, unemployment has gone from 8.1% to 7.4%. isn't the overall trend positive? >> chris, for those who have found a job, gotten full time work, i think all of us are happy for those people, and we want more of that to take place. i think if you get into the details of the numbers, what we're seeing, though, is unequivocally the majority of the new jobs that have been created, at least last year, were part time jobs, not full-time jobs. and we've also seen the labor participation rate, the number of people who actually are still in the market for jobs go down, which means there are a lot of americans who frankly have given up. that's really, i think, what's so critical right now, is that we focus on seeing how can fundamentally get this economy
growing again so that people can find full-time jobs and we can take away the impediments like obamacare and red tape coming out of this town. >> you talk about creating jobs, growing the economy, but you have spent the last week in the houseworking on and passing your agenda, a series of bills called stop government abuse. included in the buys, let's put it up on the screen, block the irs from enforcing obamacare, place limits on taxpayer-funded conferences, require congress to approve new regulations that cost more than $100 million. here's what democratic congressman elijah cummings had to say about the way you spent the last week. >> republicans are more interested in playing partisan games and advancing political messaging bills. americans want congress to focus on creating jobs, growing our economy. >> is what you've been doing the
best way to spend congress' time when you're about to go in a recess for five full weeks? >> well, first of all, chris, government doesn't create jobs. the private sector does. what we have going on today is a real erosion of the confidence on behalf of the american public in terms of their trust in government, frankly the faith in the economy. the kinds of bills we bought to the floor this week, one said, you know what, stop the bureaucrats from passing massive regulations impeding ability for our businesses to grow. let's think about the people out there that actually are out of work because they don't have the proper skills and training. stop burdening our economy. that's what the purpose of these bills were this week, chris. the problem is, we don't get a lot of bipartisan support. we passed a bill that said bureaucrats shouldn't be allowed to give excessive bonuses right now. people ought to know that their
taxpayer dollars are spent wisely. this can build confidence long term, progress in america, growth in our economy is dependent on that. >> congressman, rightly or wrongly, none of the bills that you passed is going to become law. your own members say they're not going to pass the senate. the president won't sign them. let's talk reality. you haven't passed a farm bill. you've only passed 4 of the 12 appropriations bills you're supposed to pass. we face a government shutdown and a debt limit in the fall. again, is this the best way to spend your time passing bills that aren't going to become law? and an added question, with so much unfinished business why not stick around instead of taking a five-week vacation? >> let me try to address those. first of all, you've got the president now out giving campaign speeches again as if we're in the middle of a presidential election again. these speeches that he's been giving over the last two weeks have nothing new in them. in fact, he's engaging in the blame game. when it is easy for the
president to get some progress going here now, he talks about job creation. we in the house, we passed a bill that speaks to the fact that there are unemployed workers because they don't have the right skills necessary. the president could pick up the phone and tell harry reid to bring that bill right up. we've passed a number of energy bills in the house that go toward trying to relieve the consumers out there in the middle of the summer driving season at the increasing price at the pump. is the president joining us, encouraging the senator to bring it up. >> i raised exactly the same issues with treasury secretary jack lew last week. i said what a waste of time it is to keep trying to repeal obamacare by the republicans when it isn't going to happen. you could tend to your own knitting, pass a farm bill. you have the power of the purse. only 4 of the 12 appropriations bills have you even passed. why not do what the house is supposed to do?
>> let me continue to address the list of items that you put forward. one, on the farm bill, we have passed a farm bill. we in the house, we said we're going to bust up the almost 50-year custom where would you going to marry up two issues and force people to vote on those. we passed a farm bill. republican majority for the first time says we don't like the way things have always been done in washington. that's exactly what we're trying to change. we're going to bring a bill forward under chairman lucas' leadership that actually says about food stamps, we want the people who need those food stamp benefits to get them. but you know what, it's an issue of fairness. if they're able bodied people who can work, they ought to do that in order to receive a government benefit. that's the proposal we're bringing forward. you talk about appropriations bills. we passed four in the house. the senate has passed zero, right? the fact is the house of
representatives has been the only one focused on trying to get a handle on our fiscal problem. >> let me bring up an appropriations bill, because this week you had to pull the transportation and housing bill because you couldn't get enough republicans to vote for it, to support it. afterwards, the house appropriations chairman, harold rogers said this, put it on the screen. "i believe that the house has made its choice. sequestration and its cuts must be brought to an end." question, are you willing, when you get this from the chairman of the house appropriations, a conservative house republican, are you willing to compromise on the $109 billion in automatic sequestration cuts starting in october? >> here's the problem. what we need to have happen is leadership on the part of this president in the white house to come to the table finally and say we're going to fix the underlying problem that's driving our deficit. we know, that is the entitlement programs, and unfunded
liability, that they are leaving on this generation and the next. >> so are you saying you're willing to -- if you could get a compromise on entitlements -- then you would give up on the sequestration? >> what we have always said in the house as republicans, leadership and members alike, is that we want to fix the real problem. the real problem is entitlements. we've always said, sequester is t the best way to go about spending reductions. it was, as you know, a default mechanism, because congress couldn't do the job it was supposed to a couple years ago. we've always said that. >> are you ready to give up on sequestration? >> in fact, chris, we've always said, president, come join us, but the house is the only one who has consistently engaged in trying to address the spending problem. this fall will give us a great opportunity, i think, to all come together, try to tackle the real problem, which is the entitlements. >> when you back from your
recess, you have only nine legislative days until the end of september when the government runs out of money, funding shuts down. first of all, do you support a short-term extension, a continuing resolution, to give you more time to work out a deal? what's the basis for a real deal to fund the government and to raise the debt limit? >> well, yes. i think that most conservatives, most on the left, republicans, democrats alike, say we shouldn't be for a government shutdown. what we're trying to do is fund the government, make sure we take away the kinds of things that are standing in the way of a growing economy, better healthcare, all the while keeping our eye focused on trying to deal with the ultimate problem, which is this growing deficit. and that means when we get to the issue of the debt ceiling, it's not some sort of fictional process, a process we go through. what raising the debt limit
means, it's increasing your credit limit. for too long now, washington has disregarded the fact that that -- what that does is, it burdens our kids and theirs. we actually are digging the hole deeper for the next generation. >> but congressman, the president -- i'm not saying who's right or wrong. the president wants higher taxes and more spending. you want lower taxes and less spending. the president says clean debt limit, just give me the increase in the debt limit, and you, the republicans, the boehner rule, say no increase in the debt limit without an equal or greater cut in spending. >>.i'm not saying it's right or wrong. aren't we headed for a train wreck? >> i'm hoping through the process we can find common ground. >> where's the common ground? >> last week in the house, chris, we codified the president's delay of the obamacare employer mandate. we also said, it's only fair to
extend that delay of a mandate to individuals and working people as well. >> he opposes that. >> we had 22 members of his party in the house join us. and in fact, what we also saw that week were three national democratic union leaders speak out on obamacare as well. they said that this law is already creating nightmare scenarios to working people in this country. as we know, as this union letter specified this, that obamacare is turning our economy into a part time economy. >> again, if i may, sir, aren't we -- >> we have common ground. >> but you don't have common ground with the president. you don't have common ground with the senate republican leadership. i'm not saying you should cave. i asked jack lew, what are you asking for from them? aren't we headed for a train wreck? >> i hope not. i think anterio we are earnest r desire to fix these problems, that there's common ground in
saying all of us know you got to do something about the entitlement. the biggest growing entitlement before has has to do with healthcare. we can do something. the president has already given on obamacare, conceded that it's flawed, and the employer mandate shouldn't be put into effect. let's do the same for individuals. let's say it's only fair not to burden them with the taxes and mandate. >> less than a minute left. immigration. congressman paul ryan said the house will vote this bill, as early as october, on a bill to provide 11 million illegal immigrants already in this country with legal status. take a look. >> it's a system that gets people right with the law, where we have a probationary period, where they have to pay taxes, pay a fine, learn english, learn civics, get right with the law. >> we made an announcement as to
how this will come forward. we are not going to be bringing the senate bill up. we don't believe that's the right path toward an immigration reform bill. i think the house has also indicated we're going to take a position on this. we know the system is broken. we want to fix it. as you know, our committee, the judiciary committee in the house headed by bob goodlat, my colleague from virginia, has already taken action on bills having to do with temporary worker permits -- >> we're running out of time. simple yes or no. are you committed to a vote on a path to legalization? >> we will have a vote on a series of bills at some point, chris, dealing with a variety of issues. border security is a really important issue, because it goes to that trust factor as well. we also, as you know, i've been very active in promoting what i'm calling a kids bill. it'it says that you not hold kis liable for illegal acts of their
parents. >> we'll leave it there. i got to take it you're not committed to an overall vote on legalization. >> i have said we will be addressing the issue of immigration in the house according to our terms, not the way the senate did, because as you know now there's a lot of doubt being cast on whether the folks who voted for that know even what in the end was voted on because of the scramble to get the votes in the last piece of that legislative activity. we're going to do a lot more deliberative and smart in the house. >> always a pleasure to talk with you. covered a lot of ground. thank you. please come back, sir. >> thank you. >> up next, 22 u.s. embassies close their doors, and the state department issues a global travel alert. we're ask our sunday panel about the terror threat, what it says about the president's foreign policy when we come right49ú;h@ó
past, we know that when information surfaces that shows that our personnel are at risk, we should act on that information. >> chris: congressman ed royce, chairman of the house foreign affairs committee, discussing the extraordinary steps the obama administration is taking to respond to the latest terror threat. it's time now for our sunday group. bill kristol of "the weekly standard." fox news media analyst, howard kurtz. former republican senator and head of the heritage foundation, jim demint, and fox news political analyst, juan williams. bill, what do you make of the decision to close the embassies and consulates from algeria to bangladesh? what does it say about the president's foreign policy and our fight where we stand with al-qaeda? >> four years ago, president obama gave a much heralded speech, his outreach to the muslim world, and now four years later we're closing embassies throughout the muslim world. the year ago the president said al-qaeda is on the run.
now we seem to be on the run. i'm not criticizing the decision to close the embassies, probably the right thing to do to save american lives and others, but it's a terrible thing. you know, just a year ago, boasting al-qaeda is on the run, osama bin laden is dead, and now an unprecedented closure of 22 embassies. the travel alert, which lasts for a month, which incidentally, i'm not sure people understand, the state department hates to do that. this is the highest level -- the travel advisories they do routinely. travel alert, every host government dislikes that. it cuts tourism. they're objecting to the ambassadors there. the ambassadors are cabling back to the state department, travel alert, are you sure we have to do that? for the u.s. government, the state department to issue a travel alert for the next month means about the threat is serious. >> chris: senator demint, the president was criticized heavily last september after benghazi for not doing enough. is it fair now to criticize him for doing too much? >> well, it's clear that al-qaeda may be more of a threat to us they were before 9/11 now. we don't know exactly what all
the intelligence is, but as you've heard from a lot of the experts on both sides the aisle in congress, there's a real threat there. so i'm not questioning what he's doing. i think what bill is saying is true, is our attempt to placate parts of the world, reset to whether it's russia or somewhere else, clearly are not working. the perception of weakness in administration is encouraging this kind of behavior. >> chris: juan, what do you think about that, the idea that the obama administration is in retreat, now we're on the run, not al-qaeda? >> well, first of all, i think it's a miscast interpretation of events. clearly the al-qaeda that attacked us on 9/11 really has been denuded. i mean that line of command and control and training centers that they had in pakistan, afghanistan, we as an american people have gone and have made a tremendous price to dismantle that operation. what we're dealing now with is this kind of loosely organized
terror network often influenced by the internet. you get those lone wolves, like the tsarnaev brothers in boston. >> we're talking about al-qaeda in the arabian peninsula. >> is an off-chute, their own creation. what we have to do, i think, get away from the politics for a second and understand the severity of the terror threat, the fact that it has sort of metastasized, has an element here and there. this is a new kind of threat. to simply play politics and say, oh, president obama said al-qaeda was gone, that al-qaeda has been dismantled thanks to republican and democratic efforts. >> al-qaeda in the arabian peninsula is the original al-qaeda. where is osama bin laden from? where is he from? yemen and saudi arabia. >> saudi arabia. >> that is core al-qaeda. >> the people who attacked us were saudi arabians, where the new threat is coming from. >> chris: howard kurtz, you'll learn you have to jump in. >> maybe the administration is suffering from post-benghazi syndrome and is overreacting.
we don't know the classified details. it's based on intelligence intercepts, so i don't think it's an exercise. to be fair, barack obama never rolled out a mission accomplished banner and said that the threat had been completely eradicated. for all the chatter on sunday morning talk shows and elsewhere, about whether the blocks is smart, whether they're doing too much, too little, that pales if there were american casualties and everybody would be on the white house, why didn't you do something before the attack took place. >> chris: senator demint, does the administration's policy -- i mean, look, they don't need any excuse to hate us. they hate us. they'll continue to hate us, the bad guys in that part of the world. has the administration's policies in any way contributed, however, to this? >> chris, it's hard to tell. but i can tell from you, from talking to people all over the world, who have come through the heritage foundation, and we've
had discussions, there is a perception of weakness of this administration. >> senator, was there a perception of weakness during eight years of the bush administration, the color-coded alerts? >> you're saying the posterior contraception of weakness because of the alerts. >> the instability around the world is clearly related to at least a perception of a lack of resolve of the united states and perception of weakness. i'm not questioning what the president is doing here. in fact, i think he should be overcautious rather than undercautious after benghazi, but i think what we're seeing is a reaction to a perception that the united states does not have the will to act. >> juan, in the time we have left, what does this do to the debate over the nsa? you heard justin amash talking about invasion of privacy. there seems to be a push in congress, even among support, we got to put new limits on it. on the other hand, it's probably through the nsa that we got the electronic intercepts that gave us this information.
>> look, you know, you look at the poll numbers, what you see is americans are concerned about violations of civil liberties, but it's still the case that a majority of americans say it's okay if this is an anti-terror effort, we believe in it. they think the government is liable to go too far, use the data too political reasons, for personal reasons, but people think, you know what, if this is a legitimate thing, approved by congress, approved by the president, and they hear from the intelligence chiefs it's being properly used, they say go ahead, fight the terrorists. >> panel, we need to take a break. up next, the new divide inside the gop over obamacare and spending.
cutting the pork barrel spending that he brings home to kentucky. >> governor christie can't point to votes that i've ever voted to bring pork barrel projects to any state. >> chris: governor chris christie and senator rand paul, two republican presidential candidates demonstrating the divide these days inside the gop. we're back now with a panel. while there's a growing split among republicans on a number of issues from national surveillance to spending, and we may see that playing out on the panel here right now. bill, on obamacare, folks from the tea party wing, including senator demint, say no funding the government unless you defund obamacare. why are they wrong? >> they're right to want to fight obamacare. they're right, the leadership, in the house and senate, hasn't done enough to force votes, especially in the senate, to delay parts of obamacare, extremely vulnerable parts. the house did a good job in passing delays in both mandates, the individual and employer
mandate, got democratic votes. senator mcconnell on thursday night tried to put it on the senate calendar, invoked a mysterious rule 14, that i don't understand, and i think they might be able to force a vote in september. i give them credit for pushing, for fighting, which is good. there are more intelligent, tactically ways to fight than to say we're going to defund all of obamacare, voting for any continuing resolution that doesn't defund obamacare is surrender. it's going to be extremely difficult. >> chris: i have to say bill kristol was disappointingly diplomatic there, senator demint. some leading republicans say this is crazy. tom cull says it's suicidal. richard burr, your former colleague in the senate, says it's the dumbest idea i've ever heard. what are they missing? >> chris, obamacare is unfair,
unworkable, affordable, and very unpopular. even the democrats who wrote the bill say it's a train wreck. president obama has agreed it's not ready for primetime. >> i understand that you don't like that, but what about republicans lo say it's crazy. >> the >> the republicans say tt crazyv to hold the government hostage. >> this is a destructive law that will hurt a lot of people. this may be the last opportunitn to stopo it. now, there's no republican i am aware of that wants to shut the government down. the point is we need to fund the government, but we should not fund obama care as this is a temporary funding mechanism ep that's coming up in september. it should not be funded and this would be a statement. >> but ysenator, what they say,u you don't take a hostage unless you're prepared to shoot him.re if you go downpa this road, are you prepared to shut down the government? the democrats are not going to go along with this. are you prepared to shut down the government? >> i would not shut down the government, if obama wouldn't
accept a bill that fully funds the government because it didn't have his failed law in it, then he would be shutting the government. that's a case we'reme going to w take to the american people in august, through heritage action, going to be doing dozens of tows halls around the country. i am convinced more americans mo know about obama care, the more they're going to stand with those of us that want to stop it. >> howie, what's going on here, it isn't just obama care, it is spending, you see some , it is republicans pulling back from the sequester, say it is too oo tough for domestic programs in their districts, big fight as we saw in the first segment about surveillance and restrictions ot nsa. why the split inside the party,p why is it playing out so early in this cycle?ot >> a lot of mainstream republicans are upset, even angry at what you might call thg bomb throwing wing of the party led by senator ted cruz and others for these kinds of threats, not because they don't want to defund obama care, not because they're happy with the sequester, because this is feelc good politics, it is a political statement, makes the base feel good. ultimately it disappoints those
who are on your side because when you only control one half of the legislative branch, you can't force your will on the rest of it. here is the irony, obama care remains fairly unpopular. people like somere of the benefits, like no pre-existing conditions, there's clearly problems with implementation. this gop infighting is taking the spotlight off problems with the law and putting it on the deep divisions within the republican party. >> juan, democrats had plenty oe their own internal battles overn the years. should they just love what's y going on inside the republican party? >> i think it is a jamaican reggae song. rain don't fall on one man's house. you know, the problems that se have -- that are dividing the republican party, right now, rt dysfunctional ypolitics, about s obstructing obama care. obama care is law of the land, going to happen. they're leaderless. none of the leaders can controlo the extremist elements of the party. what does it mean for the american people? man we create manufactured crises do
that drive down the credit rating, don't dealev with job creating. the plsplit is that they understand republican governors want spending on infrastructure. the government needs it to function. >> never asked this before.ys are you guys dysfunctional? >> this is a debate we need to have, whether it is the nsa or obama care, do we have the courage of our convictions. i is this really a law we think is going to hurt our country. >> what did you tell the republicans, just this week the pulled the spending bill because a lot of people, a lot of republicans weren't willing to gor. with the sequester and the automatic spending cuts. >> it is goingo to be hard for lot in congress to give up the spending. we're going to bankrupt our country if we don't. >> what do you do when speaker boehner says it is not about hey accomplishment, it is about repeal. that's how we measure success. it is crazy.>> i >> it is a healthy debate for republicans. that thought. it is not about what you just said, it is about the fact we have run out of time. thank you panel, see you next
famous people coming to washington to push for their cause. we sat down in april with a person trying to save lives, millions of lives for years. she's our power player of the week. >> it is very hard to ignore that kind of pain and suffering, unnecessary pain and suffering when it comes to a virus that's completely preventable. >> charlize theron is talking about hiv aids, progress that's been made and work that still needs to be done. >> you all get to decide what you want to do to make something in your world better. >> worldwide, 7,000 people are infected and 4500 still die every day. and yet she says there has been so much progress. >> the access to anti-retro viral drugs in south africa leapt to 75%. we are looking at the first aids regeneration.
we are close to looking to the beginning of the end of aids. >> she was in washington part of u.n. aids leading the fight against the disease. the u.s. exhibits 6 billion of 17 billion spent each year fighting aids. she's lobbying for a bigger contribution. >> a lot of americans think foreign aid is a huge percentage of the budget of america, but it really is less than 1%. >> born and raised in south africa, she has been fighting the battle more than 20 years. at age 15, she saw her mother shoot and kill her alcoholic father that threatened the family. she started speaking out about rape and aids. >> there are so many people who care about you. isn't it a great feeling to know that you're not alone? >> in 2007, she started africa outreach program, sending mobile health clinics to villages to teach young people about aids prevention and treatment. >> how much of your focus on violence against women and children comes from your own personal history? >> well, look, in my business,
film making business, there's always a saying, you can't tell a story effectively if you don't emotionally tap into it. i do have a personal connection to that. >> she's gratified to see teenagers that used to ignore prevention now leading the fight against aids and she's determined to use her celebrity to do some good. >> i feel like a mother in the sense that i watched them grow up. i couldn't be the activist i am today if i didn't have this spotlight, which, you know, sometimes is about my haircut, and i am trying to maybe other times make it about the fight for something like stopping aids and hiv or violence against women. >> theron is still hard at work, met with south african president on monday to discuss how the fight against aids is going in her home country. and that's it for today. have a great week. we will see you next fox news sunday. we'll see you next fox news sunday,.
this is the fox report. at this hour, the state department extending the time line, keeping some of our u.s. embassies and consulates closed in the wake of a terror warning. and some lawmakers are not mincing words, calling it the most serious threat we faced in many years. what they now know about it, to americans overseas. >> after benghazi, these al qaeda types were really on steroids, thinking we're weaker, they're stronger. >> those operatives are in place because we received information that high level people from al qaeda in the arabian peninsula are talking about a major attack. >> there's bee